US Elections 2012 Part II: The Conventions, Debates and Election results

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Notices

Trouble logging in?We were forced to invalidate all account passwords. You will have to reset your password to login. If you have trouble resetting your password, please send us a message with as much helpful information as possible, such as your username and any email addresses you may have used to register. Whatever you do, please do not create a new account. That is not the right solution, and it is against our forum rules to own multiple accounts.

That's an understandable viewpoint. I wouldn't be so anti-this thread if more posters were reasonable as you and Vexx are. I think Romney's a good and hardworking person (He's done 28 years worth of volunteer work, and went to Harvard Law School and Business School at the same time); I just wish he'd leave the Christian shit at the door. As for his fiscal policies... well, I'll refrain from commenting because I don't know a thing about money. >_>

You are seeking reason from anti-Romney people, and at the same time this is your reasoning for you to favor him:

- Romney's a good and hardworking person because...

- He's done 28 years worth of volunteer work
- and went to Harvard Law School and Business School at the same time

- You don't seem to have much take on his fiscal policies because you don't know anything about money

- You also seem not to like the idea of religion to justify anything so you wish he would leave the Christian shit at the door.

How is your viewpoint any more reasonable if I may ask? I confess I haven't read every post in this thread, but I've followed it more or less, and the opinion that mostly anti-Romney seems to stem from where he exactly stands with most of the issues and how questionable his solutions are toward some of our biggest problem such as the debt issue, healthcare, social issue, and etc. I know I'm being harsh here, but don't you think you should at least attempt to read more reasonable when you are criticizing the takes of those anti-Romney people based on how unreasonable they are?

You are seeking reason from anti-Romney people, and at the same time this is your reasoning for you to favor him:

- Romney's a good and hardworking person because...

- He's done 28 years worth of volunteer work
- and went to Harvard Law School and Business School at the same time

- You don't seem to have much take on his fiscal policies because you don't know anything about money

- You also seem not to like the idea of religion to justify anything so you wish he would leave the Christian shit at the door.

How is your viewpoint any more reasonable if I may ask? I confess I haven't read every post in this thread, but I've followed it more or less, and the opinion that mostly anti-Romney seems to stem from where he exactly stands with most of the issues and how questionable his solutions are toward some of our biggest problem such as the debt issue, healthcare, social issue, and etc.

A fair point, but sadly I have things I'd rather be doing than spending hours debating in this illustrious thread

If I recall all US Presidents from 1932 until today, I'd inform everyone that 12 men became Presidents since then (6 Democrats and 6 Republicans). Out of the 6 Republican Presidents, only one of them was serious in maintaining the economy away from any possible recession, expanding social security, launching into large infrastructure projects and making sure the time is of peace: Dwight D. Eisenhower, a moderate Republican. What about the other 5 Republicans? They contributed in increasing social differences, they neglected the needs of low and middle classes, they deregulated the economy into a free-for-all situation not so different from what Calvin Coolidge allowed (which led to the Great Depression), and they were never backed from doing a number things recklessly in international politics. What's even worse now is how the GOP is neglecting women and other minorities who are reflecting the changing demographics in the US.

For all those reasons, I'm entitled with the right to despise the GOP until they find someone willing to clean up the mess, getting rid of the racists, the ignorant and all other bigots/zealots plaguing the GOP. For any country's sake, it's not by pleasing the extremist branch of a party that any leader will do something for the sake of the whole country.

I said I was ignorant on one subject that Kaio mentioned, not that I was ignorant about the aspect I was defending Romney on originally (aka his overall morality and decency), please stop breathing down my neck just because someone dared to break the chain of Obama circlejerking

Since this thread has been almost completely devoid of Mitt Romney support for its entire duration, I'll just say that I have faith in Romney no matter what anyone else says. I have faith that he's a good person and, if elected, will be a good president.

That is all, thanks for reading.

So I assume you have less faith on Obama being a good person?

And you have faith in Romnbey no matter what anyone says, even if that "anyone" is Romney himself?

We are aware that there are those who support Romney. Most of us just have no idea WHY. So I assume you believe Romney is lying to get elected for our own good? That he is only playing the bad guy and that magically, once he becomes POTUS he would be a good leader that he hasn't been seen to be for the last few years?

I said I was ignorant on one subject that Kaio mentioned, not that I was ignorant about the aspect I was defending Romney on originally (aka his overall morality and decency), please stop breathing down my neck just because someone dared to break the chain of Obama circlejerking

This is an election which will decide the policy of a nation for the next four years, and which in turn will potentially impact people's live directly and indirectly for decades. How Romney or Obama are personally in terms of character, generosity etc. have little do with why people favor one over the other. Most people are voting for one or the other based on their own ideology and which candidate identify more with those views. Personable qualities that define either of these men (Obama and Romney) were left at the door as soon as those two decided to represent their parties, Democrats and Republicans.

That's pretty much the point of this thread so I hope you will understand that the criticism toward one or the other has very little to do with how they are in personal lives, but rather what they are saying or promising and consequently, where the country will head toward.

Take a break from this thread if you have to and comeback with fresher perspective. I'm pretty sure you won't need to look too hard to find something you can criticize Obama on. PM/VM Gundamfan (or even Flying for interesting perspective on things ) for some pointers if you need any.

This is an election which will decide the policy of a nation for the next four years, and which in turn will potentially impact people's live directly and indirectly for decades. How Romney or Obama are personally in terms of character, generosity etc. have little do with why people favor one over the other. Most people are voting for one or the other based on their own ideology and which candidate identify more with those views. Personable qualities that define either of these men (Obama and Romney) were left at the door as soon as those two decided to represent their parties, Democrats and Republicans.

That's pretty much the point of this thread so I hope you will understand that the criticism toward one or the other has very little to do with how they are in personal lives, but rather what they are saying or promising and consequently, where the country will head toward.

Take a break from this thread if you have to and comeback with fresher perspective. I'm pretty sure you won't need to look too hard to find something you can criticize Obama on. PM/VM Gundamfan (or even Flying for interesting perspective on things ) for some pointers if you need any.

Aye, I think I'll just take a backseat and read from now on since I've unlocked the Total Douchebag Achievement.

Probably because the way politics are at present, everything seems to be negatives. There are almost no positives anymore in the election. It is all about just how bad it will be based on whoever wins. No notion of how good things will get if one man wins over the other, but how bad it will be, period.

It seems to be all negative all the time. It that what the nation deserves?

Probably because the way politics are at present, everything seems to be negatives. There are almost no positives anymore in the election. It is all about just how bad it will be based on whoever wins. No notion of how good things will get if one man wins over the other, but how bad it will be, period.

It seems to be all negative all the time. It that what the nation deserves?

It is the challenger's job to claim he would do a better job than the current POTUS.

I am still waiting for Romney to stick to one story for more than a week.

Probably because the way politics are at present, everything seems to be negatives. There are almost no positives anymore in the election. It is all about just how bad it will be based on whoever wins. No notion of how good things will get if one man wins over the other, but how bad it will be, period.

It seems to be all negative all the time. It that what the nation deserves?

If I recall all US Presidents from 1932 until today, I'd inform everyone that 12 men became Presidents since then (6 Democrats and 6 Republicans). Out of the 6 Republican Presidents, only one of them was serious in maintaining the economy away from any possible recession, expanding social security, launching into large infrastructure projects and making sure the time is of peace: Dwight D. Eisenhower, a moderate Republican. What about the other 5 Republicans? They contributed in increasing social differences, they neglected the needs of low and middle classes, they deregulated the economy into a free-for-all situation not so different from what Calvin Coolidge allowed (which led to the Great Depression), and they were never backed from doing a number things recklessly in international politics. What's even worse now is how the GOP is neglecting women and other minorities who are reflecting the changing demographics in the US.

For all those reasons, I'm entitled with the right to despise the GOP until they find someone willing to clean up the mess, getting rid of the racists, the ignorant and all other bigots/zealots plaguing the GOP. For any country's sake, it's not by pleasing the extremist branch of a party that any leader will do something for the sake of the whole country.

I agree with you on this. Though I'm not even sure Romney even believes or backs more than half the stuff he says. Romney just wants to say what he thinks will appeal to his current audience. Hence why, when he didn't know he was being recorded, he talked about the 47% thing because the ones he was talking to fully believe that half the country is worthless and is siphoning the life out of the extremely rich who aren't worthless despite many of them being lucky, inheriting their fortune, and never knowing what it's like to go without.

Of course there's that other problem with Romney, in that there are an whole bunch of people that work under him that have been feeding him consistent misinformation. That example happened during that one debate with the "Act of terror" comment in which Romney said that the President never had stated until fourteen days later. Then the moderator dragged his ass back to reality, live on television for all to witness.

That right there had really hurt Romney's campaign. It made everyone feel that, well, at least it didn't end up as bad as the last group that claimed that Iraq has and were building weapons of mass destruction. Those being the same people having previously got everyone involved in a war based on what continues to be the same structure of lies and misinformation. And I was wrong to give the Conservatives then the benefit of the doubt.

Those Bush years didn't fade away from everyone's mind. And when the question was asked directly to Romney on that very same day on how he would be any different than then George W. Bush? After that "Acts of terror" episode, now we know.

But the insinuation of only supporting Romney because he's a "good person" is that Obama is a bad person. Or that Obama is a good person, but Romney is better, and you care nothing for actual stances on issues and quantify people based on how many years they donate to charity. Their charity, mind you, as if I'm not mistaken the vast majority of Romney's charity goes to his church.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

I am still waiting for Romney to stick to one story for more than a week.

There's one issue he doesn't seem to be flip-flopping on: immigration.

But the insinuation of only supporting Romney because he's a "good person" is that Obama is a bad person. Or that Obama is a good person, but Romney is better, and you care nothing for actual stances on issues and quantify people based on how many years they donate to charity. Their charity, mind you, as if I'm not mistaken the vast majority of Romney's charity goes to his church.

I think Dr. Casey is just surprised at the amount of negative feelings expressed on this thread about Romney. There's a difference between respecting both candidates and favouring one and hating on one candidate and supporting the other.

He seems to support one of them and respect both of them. Seems reasonable. You're all Americans after all. You are all citizens in a democratic process electing your chosen representative.